First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
Admittedly Mascaro et al. do not depend on just two or three outliers one could strike off to nullify their result. But still their main result is only present in the top and bottom quartiles of their figure 1 and conspicuously absent in the middle ground. They undoubtedly are on to something, as their figure 2c shows, but figure 2b, where it seems to rest in at most four data points, proves the weakness of their main conclusion. Male height is known to correlate with extramarital mating so their correction for it may well have spuriously created the effect they intend to show. We can’t say, as uncorrected results are neither shown nor alluded to.